The Scandal at Walter Reed

The scandal at Walter Reed is not an isolated
incident. It is directly related to our foreign policy of interventionism.

There is a pressing need to reassess our now widely accepted role as the world's
lone superpower. If we don't, we are destined to reduce our nation to something
far less powerful.

It has always been politically popular for politicians to promise they will
keep us out of foreign wars, especially before World War I. That hasn't
changed, even though many in Washington today don't understand it.

Likewise it has been popular to advocate ending prolonged and painful conflicts
like the wars in Korea and Vietnam, and now Iraq.

In 2000, it was quite popular to condemn nation building and reject the policy
of policing the world, in the wake of our involvement in Kosovo and Somalia.
We were promised a more humble foreign policy.

Nobody wins elections by promising to take us to war. But once elected, many
politicians greatly exaggerate the threat posed by a potential enemy  and the
people too often carelessly accept the dubious reasons given to justify wars.
Opposition arises only when the true costs are felt here at home.

A foreign policy of interventionism costs so much money that we're forced
to close military bases in the U.S., even as we're building them overseas.
Interventionism is never good fiscal policy.

Interventionism symbolizes an attitude of looking outward, toward empire, while
diminishing the importance of maintaining a constitutional republic.

We close bases here at home  some want to close Walter Reed  while building
bases in Arab and Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia. We worry about foreign
borders while ignoring our own. We build permanent outposts in Muslim holy lands,
occupy territory, and prop up puppet governments. This motivates suicide terrorism
against us.

Our policies naturally lead to resentment, which in turn leads to prolonged
wars and increased casualties. We spend billions in Iraq, while bases like Walter
Reed fall into disrepair. This undermines our ability to care for the thousands
of wounded soldiers we should have anticipated, despite the rosy predictions
that we would be greeted as liberators in Iraq.

Now comes the outrage.

Now Congress holds hearings.

Now comes the wringing of hands. Yes, better late than never.

Clean it up, paint the walls, make Walter Reed look neat and tidy! But this
won't solve our problems. We must someday look critically at the shortcomings
of our foreign policy, a policy that needlessly and foolishly intervenes in
places where we have no business being.

Voters spoke very clearly in November: they want the war to end. Yet Congress
has taken no steps to defund or end a war it never should have condoned in the
first place.

On the contrary, Congress plans to spend another $100 billion or more in an
upcoming Iraq funding bill  more even than the administration has requested.
The 2007 military budget, $700 billion, apparently is not enough. And it's
all done under the slogan of "supporting the troops," even as our
policy guarantees more Americans will die and Walter Reed will continue to receive
casualties.

Every problem Congress and the administration create requires more money to
fix. The mantra remains the same: spend more money we don't have, borrow
from the Chinese, or just print it.

This policy of interventionism is folly, and it cannot continue forever. It
will end, either because we wake up or because we go broke.